WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court
has ruled, in a sweeping decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users.

The two-to-one decision from a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday came in a case about rules applying to a doctrine known as net neutrality, which prohibit broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers.

Those rules, created by the Federal Communications Commission in early 2015, started
a huge legal battle
as cable, telecom and wireless internet providers sued to overturn regulations that they said went far beyond the F.C.C.’s authority and would hurt their businesses.

The court’s decision upheld the F.C.C. on the historic declaration of broadband as a utility, the most significant aspect of the rules. That has broad-reaching implications for web and telecommunications companies and signals a shift in the government’s view of broadband as a service that should be equally accessible to all Americans, rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision.

“After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections — both on fixed and mobile networks — that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future,” said Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., in a statement.

The 184-page ruling opens a path for new limits on broadband providers. Already, the F.C.C. has
proposed privacy rules
for broadband providers, limiting the ability of companies like Verizon and AT&T to collect and share data about broadband subscribers.

Photo

Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said the court’s ruling would “ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future.”Credit
Matthew Eisman/Getty Images for Common Sense Media

Google and Netflix support net neutrality rules and have warned government officials that without regulatory limits, broadband providers would have an incentive to create business models that could harm consumers. They argue that broadband providers could degrade the quality of downloads and streams of online services to extract tolls from web companies or to promote unfairly their own competing services or the content of partners.

The court’s ruling was a slam-dunk for the F.C.C. The panel of three judges who heard the case late last year agreed that wireless broadband services were also common carrier utility services subject to anti-blocking and discrimination rules, a decision protested by wireless carriers including AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

“This is an enormous win for consumers,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge. “It ensures the right to an open internet with no gatekeepers.”

The legal battle from the broadband industry is far from over. The cable and telecom industries have signaled their intent to challenge any unfavorable decision, possibly taking the case to the Supreme Court.

AT&T immediately said it would continue to fight.

“We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal,” said David McAtee II, the senior executive vice president and general counsel for AT&T.

In a statement, the cable industry’s biggest lobbying group highlighted the comments of the dissenting judge, Stephen Williams, and said its members were reviewing the opinion. The group also said broadband legislation by Congress was a better alternative to the F.C.C.’s classification of internet business as a utility.

“While this is unlikely the last step in this decade-long debate over internet regulation, we urge bipartisan leaders in Congress to renew their efforts to craft meaningful legislation that can end ongoing uncertainty, promote network investment and protect consumers,” Michael Powell, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said in a statement.